PETA: wants to appear on court in the name of tortured piglets

 

Can animals sue? The animal rights organization “PETA e.V.” wants to clarify the question before the supreme court.

 

banane rep deutschlandpg

PETA will petition the Federal Constitutional Court on behalf of tortured piglets. The special feature: The piglets themselves are to appear as legal persons, are formally and content complainants.

Neuregelung bei Ferkel-Kastrationen

The fact that animals participate in such a process is a novelty in Germany – and highly controversial.
The Karlsruhe judges could therefore fail the constitutional complaint of pigs on the admissibility. Then it would not come to the material examination.

Background of the constitutional complaint is denounced by animal rights activists as torture practice of castration of pigs.

Ferkel kastrieren 12
Annually, about 20 million male piglets are castrated in Germany shortly after birth in order to avoid the “boar taint” that affects the taste of the meat.
In castration, the piglets are usually cut open without anesthesia, the skin over the scrotum. Then the testicles are squeezed out and the spermatic cord is severed.
The pigs are fully conscious at the procedure.

Kastration für Ferkel -Schritt 2_n

Castration without anesthesia repeatedly postponed

Already in 2013, the Animal Welfare Act was amended so that the castration without anesthesia should only be allowed until the end of December 2018, but then shortly before the expiry of this deadline on 29 November 2018, the Parliament decided on the initiative of the Federal Government to extend the deadline by another two years extend.
The background of the extension: The farmers came the ban too early, they wanted the “regulated exit from the anesthetic castration”, it was then called by the German Farmers Association.
The “compromise” of the federal government finally envisaged that from 2020 on it should be allowed to pet owners to stun their piglets with the anesthetic gas isoflurane itself.
Against this practice and the statutory extension of the deadline Peta now turns with the constitutional complaint.

20170217_ferkelkastra1_gal

If the Federal Constitutional Court accepts the complaint, animals are granted rights that affect the entire society.

“The German law and the handling of animals in our society are blatantly contradictory to each other: Despite the animal welfare law and the constitutionally set goal of animal welfare every day countless animals are tortured and maltreated,” says Harald Ullmann, second chairman of Peta Germany eV in a statement of the association.

Pigs should be able to demand rights

“In order for the current legislation to be finally enforced, it is essential that animals are treated as legal entities and that they have the opportunity to sue for the enforcement of their rights in court.”

Under the Basic Law, the Federal Constitutional Court decides on “constitutional complaints” that can be raised by “anyone who claims to have been violated by an authority in one of its fundamental rights”.
Are pigs “somebody”? The question sounds philosophical.

The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, however, will deal with this question, since the answer to this question decides whether pigs – and other animals – may sue in Karlsruhe itself, ie are entitled to appeal or not.

Blutendes Ferkel_n

Animal welfare is state goal

Christian Arleth, a lawyer at the animal rights organization Peta, says: “It should be clear that the term ‘everyone’ should be interpreted broadly.” Strictly speaking, women would no longer be able to appeal.

The fact that the pigs have the right to act as a complainant, derive the lawyers from Peta eV from the existing legal system: “The ability to have their own fundamental rights and demand depends on whether a person from the legal system as “capable of interest and of itself worthy of protection “, says Christian Arleth.

Ferkel unter cupierenpg

This is the case with the piglets. “The animals are already protected by a criminal law standard in the Animal Protection Law for their own sake.
There is the principle of freedom from suffering and pain for every single animal “, from which the subjective legal protection for the animals themselves and thus the ability to demand these rights themselves can be deduced.

BEACHTEN: NPG-LIZENZ

Animal welfare is enshrined as a state goal in Article 20a of the Basic Law.

Elsewhere, animals have already been granted rights as “non-human persons”.
For example, the orangutan lady Sandra, who has been living in a zoo in Argentina for 20 years, was acquitted by a court in Buenos Aires of her “unjustified captivity”.
Although she was not biologically identical with humans, but was emotionally and happier in freedom, animal rights activists had argued at that time.

The court had followed this view.

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/panorama/tierschutz-ferkel-vor-dem-verfassungsgericht/25241990.html

My comment: In our humorous German animal protection law states: “Nobody is allowed to inflict pain, suffering or harm on an animal for no reasonable reason.”
Food is a reasonable reason, that’s how we made it, so we can torture animals.
Such peculiarities don`t apply to humans! killing is punished, no matter for what motives or reasons a person is killed.

In this respect, it is very important to put animal rights equal to human rights.
The basic question that the Federal Court must clarify is: are animals subjects of rights? Because they can not defend themselves, are we denying them the right of the legal entity?

No civilized person today would put the question of whether a 6-month-old or a mentally handicapped child are legal entities.
Because according to law these persons, despite their restriction to defend themselves, are legal entities, they are recognized as persons.

The animal welfare does not address animal rights; just dictate how people should treat animals. In other words, the creation of the Animal Welfare Act essentially affects humans, not animals, because humans decide (justice) how humans (actors) have to deal with animals.
The victims ones do not have much of it. An abused dog may often return to his torturer. He paid a fine for violating the law, but not the animal rights. The “thing” dog stays with him in this case.
Because animals are still considered as thing.

But if the court decides that pigs are an “anyone” then not only anesthesia-free castration will be banned but also the rape of female cows. And a lot of other crimes we practice every day on countless animals with the fascist law of the superior race.

ALL Animals are persons who should be protected like humans, and if they can not do it themselves (like little babies or senile people) their lawyers will do that.

Basta! And thank you PETA, we are with you!

My best regards to all, Venus

 

One thought on “PETA: wants to appear on court in the name of tortured piglets”

  1. Yes, Thank you PETA, we are with you! Animals are persons , not things, not property.
    Animals are not human food, animal proteins and fats kill people, which is why this reason is gone. Animals are nobody’s property, because property has no heartbeat, animals are subjects and not objects, just as human children are, and senile people – that must be written in the constitution of every state in the 21st century.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s